stexpandedfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Interwiki linking
In this this discussion, Kevin, Mike and I have been discussing interwiki linking. I understand the policy of leaving redlinks for articles like "Photon torpedo" or "Uhura" rather than linking to Memory Alpha, because we should have those articles ourselves. However, on the Christopher Pike page, I've linked several things to the Memory Beta articles. These are things that I doubt will ever need to be made into an article here, like the Charlie Pike character from the Burning Dreams novel. On the other hand, I didn't feel right leaving it as plain text, because if someone's looking for information on that character, they should be able to click on the link and go straight to the MBeta article, instead of just following the generic External Link to the main Chris Pike article and hunting for the link to Charlie. Kevin thinks the External Link is enough, I do not. What does the rest of the community think? --TimPendragon 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC) :If we were to change policy, then we'd have to go through every article we add, fixing the links to make sure they all link correctly. It would slow down the adding process tremendously. --Kevin W. Adm•Tlk 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ::One solution would be to create an "interwiki redirect" of sorts -- let all users redlink whatever they want, then make a page that say "Sorry there is no fan fiction Charlie Pike data. Try checking 's {Charlie Pike} article." -- Captain M.K.B. 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ::It doesn't have to be done all at once, and it's something that wouldn't be necessary in most cases. The Pike article is a rarity in that regard. --TimPendragon 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ::I agree with Tim. Before, when I was adding some "needed" files and copying the main text from Memory-Alpha, and knew that we probably wouldn't be providing some of the articles, I just externally linked them to the source file in Memory-Alpha. If there is a way we could find that the links would be external and appear in a new window, that would be great, as we would not lose "viewers" then (i.e. they check out the information in a new window and keep our window open... hopefully LOL). And why can't we make a template up that will automatically link to the other article? We seem to be able to do this at the bottom of the page with the alphabeta templates... Just my 2 cents' worth. (Do you know how hard it is to add something on this page when you all are gabbin? LOL) -- usscantabrian 21:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Well the only rule I could find was on Star Trek Expanded Universe:Style :Episodes of the show may be used as reference; however we do not link them. If you wish to peruse information about an episode or movie, visit Memory Alpha, which features synopses for official productions. The way I read this is only references to "episodes" or "movies" are discouraged from linking to. Anything else is "fair game". Personally, I don't think we need to copy every article from MA or BA. Just my quick thoughts. -- Sneg Admin•Talk 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ::Right, but the issue isn't copying the articles. Kevin would rather I change the in-text links to MBeta to plain text, since there's the External Link at the bottom. I would rather have the option of going directly to the Beta article if needed. Again, this isn't going to come up often, only sometimes when there's pertinent information on Beta that doesn't warrant its transplant here. --TimPendragon 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC) :::How much do other authors/writers/etc deal with information from the novels (i.e. licensed but "non-canon")? Wouldn't that determine the need to link to MBeta or not? --usscantabrian 22:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC) We had a similar argument on MA a while back, only ours was about movie links to IMDb in actor and production staff articles. Some of us (me included) were linking inline movie titles in the real life articles to either Wikipedia or IMDb articles pertaining to the specific title. Some felt that we didn't need all those inline links to offsite pages, and that the Wikipedia and/or IMDb links at the bottom of the page in the External Links section were sufficient. The feeling was that we shouldn't be sending folks off to another web site, and if the topic being linked to was important enough, then we should have our own article on it, otherwise leave it plain text. I tend to disagree, and opt for providing the user/reader with more information rather than less, and making their browsing experience easier... why should the reader have do all the legwork and make multiple mouse clicks when we, as editors, can make it easy for them? Isn't that what the web and hyperlinks and wikis in general are all about? One of the guidelines on Wikipedia (and on MA as well) is to build the web. To me, increasing the amount of information easily available to a reader is building the web... whether the links are to onsite pages or offsite. It's obviously better to link to an internal page rather than to an external on if you can, but if not, what's wrong with linking offsite? That's my 10 cents. :) -- Renegade54 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC) :I agree... but I still think external links should force-open in another window. The reason for this (we learned in Web Design) is it keeps viewers on your page, so once they are done with the alternate window, they usually shut it once they get the information they want, and move on with your site. My 10 cents worth (hell, NZ doesn't have anything smaller any more!!! LOL) -- usscantabrian 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ::Ah yes, but don't forget that old chestnut about how it peeves some ppl off when they're forced to open new windows. There's never been an easy answer for this. One school of thought goes, "If you're going to direct them to another site, then might as well do it in one window; it's not like they can't come back." On the other hand, if you make the new window open over the same previous, then that makes it a little easier, but some folks find that annoying too, because it forces them to stop and think about what they're doing (God forbid). ::I understand the logic of keeping someone on-site, but I also understand the logic of "more is better". I tend to agree with Kevin, that an external link is enough, but it depends on each article and situation... what is being linked. (More or less as Renegade said up above.) If we do links for real-world articles, then I don't see why we shouldn't do links for certain properties, if they're just important enough to warrant a link, but don't require an article here (which is what Tim said). I'm on the fence at this point. But I don't think we should have to go and do or redo a slew of articles and links to accommodate one line of thinking--just treat it on a case-by-case basis, use both ways as it makes sense and is warranted, and note it in our linking policy. 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) :::What I am finding hard is if an article has one sentence -- Ryetalyn for example -- it is not only difficult to come up with a new variant as not to "copy" the article word for word but also very difficult to me to justify spending the time on it. I understand what everyone is saying, so please don't think I'm not... but I'm just playing devil's advocate. (Hey I'm really good at going overboard on things LOL) -- usscantabrian 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Yeah, I get ya. Somehow I doubt ryetalyn is super-humongo-important to the expanded Trekverse. In that case I'd just link it to the next-best (offsite) source too... if I couldn't write a decent article about it (even if short--short articles aren't necessarily stubs). 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)